You're right. Fuck adoption. We don't spinsters and fags caring for unwanted babies, we need MORE BABIES. This whole attitude about being unfit for parenting is a crock.
If you really hate your kids that much, and you hate my kids, and other peoples kids, then I want you to fucking die and get out of my way so we can rape your wife into pregnancy and beat her into lifelong submission. If she can't be made into a fit mother, well, she can die too. Shitty, but if she were a good woman, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
If you don't like lifes responsibilities, die on the point of a sword.
Let me guess: you fucked up, but rather than stay silent or admit that you fucked up, you're simply going to run with this, logic and reason be damned.
No, I'm seriously concerned that our malignant social system has been far below replacement levels for generations, and has only avoided collapse this long because we've been milking the population from more healthy cultures. Except, our success in spreading our malignant social system is leading to a point where immigration won't be there to fill the void, and it will become a global crisis. So, I'm thinking the way to go is to establish a political-social system that attributes votes on the basis of the number of children you have, and if you don't have children, you don't get a vote. This would allow us to split the boomer vote between the DINKs who hold the most capital and would get the scarce medical treatment under our current system and our parents, who are much poorer for having been forced to absorb the cost of raising us as though it were a luxury. I want those DINKs freezing to death out in the cold, I want the women back in the business of giving birth, and if you're not part of endless human story of procreation that will run for generations after I am dead, then you are not a human being. You are an incidental pile of meat, and you should be treated as such.
Your courage is commendable, however misplaced. I am willing to die for a lot of things, but consider such an action as a last resort. Fortunately, anonymous and non-verifiable voting allows me to reserve that sacrifice for something more important than the freedom to vote how I choose without pressure, while at the same time insuring that I have that freedom.
No, actually, it doesn't. You live under an illusion. One day, you will see that for yourself.
That is best, but you don't always have the leisure to pick your shots from a position of rest. When you're doing sprint drills across a field with an assault rifle in your hands and you have no chance to catch your breath before taking your shot and continuing to sprint, you need alternative techniques that will accommodate the physical condition you're in.
And if you have the ability to "personally" check how one's vote counted, then your boss has the ability to "personally" check how you voted. If you have a private username or something that only you know, but your boss knows you have it, it is very easy to set up a "show me how you voted or you lose your job" scenario.
If you work for someone like that, and you don't quit once you realize the character of the man you're empowering with your efforts, you deserve to get your ass kicked. You're just making him that much stronger and passing the buck on to someone else to deal with.
If you want self-determination, you need courage. It doesn't come free. Personally, I'd rather die standing in front of a mob screaming bloody murder with a weapon in my hands than be ruled in this way.
As it stands, I don't work for bosses whose politics I don't like. I quit. Always have, always will. If I don't like what a group is doing, I don't give them one iota of my strength. In the absence of a system that grants any individual real political power, sometimes the best a person can do is refuse to be of any help.
Americans have always been such a bunch of hypocritical cowards. Joseph McCarthy didn't teach you anything, and the rest of the world is still dealing with your failure to take responsibility for your country.
It's not as hard as you would think. You can't hold a rifle pointed at a target anyways, no one can. You hold it so it traces a predictable pattern that intersects your target, then time your squeeze so everything comes together. Personally, my muscles tend to move my sight in a squashed figure 8 pattern. When you're tired and out of breath, the pattern will get larger, but it will remain the same shape, and be just as predictable.
Personally, I don't see why individuals should be having secret votes. Should our elected officials be making secret votes? No, so why should anyone else? People always talk about thugs and corporate masters... if a thug tries to bully you into voting the way they say, you refuse. If they try to behave violently afterward, they go to jail. No different from any other thug.
As for corporate masters, well, if we had a good and proper voting system, a real democracy with involved citizens, maybe we could start disassembling the economic structures that give those individuals such crushing arbitrary dynastic power and shift the power towards people we actually trust.
You know, following leadership instead of being ruled? Old fashioned, I know...
Their culture has been declared evil enemies of the US and Israel. They would be idiots if they didn't expect subversion and propaganda campaigns to be launched at them from within. Hell, the play book is available on Wikileaks. Seems like a reasonable measure for them to consider, under the circumstances.
People with a lot of friends on social networking sites probably don't have all that much influence. These are people who agree to be friends with whomever asks them, and will spam people with friend requests. I see pages with "8,000 friends!", and think "uh, no. This guy does not not know 8,000 people personally or well enough to influence their decisions".
What this promises to do is make people think "Wow, if I have lots of friends on my page, I can make some money!", so I can expect a marked increase in unsolicited friend requests from people I don't know.
Not true. My girlfriend has thousands of friends on MySpace and other networking sites, almost all artists or those who appreciate the arts. She's sold original paintings worth thousands of dollars through such, generated interest in live events she's participating in, and met several people who turned into IT clients of ours. The effort invested to create that network has paid off handsomely. Can't see her selling out to any of Googles scumbag clients though... all that would achieve is to sabotage the value of what she's created.
At the end of the day, the reason these mediums are working is because people are actively rejecting anything that comes from a corporate source due to a lack of trust. That's why the corporations want to obscure themselves through schemes such as these. Won't work though... people are too sophisticated, and when they realize what's going on, they'll actively reject any message that comes from an individual who demonstrates their willingness to participate in such as this.
I don't know about your country's WTO members, but as an American I want all American WTO people tried for treason and put in front of a firing squad. And I want their companies' buildings leveled in the most hostile manner possible and their business licenses revoked.
The WTO is anti-human. They need to be stopped by fair means or foul.
It's disgusting that this comes before my country's Independance Day. My country's government is owned by foreigners and American traitors.
The web is an interconnected collection of documents. You're confusing the web with the internet.
The web is being destroyed because it's being monetized. To monetize something is to assert control over it, then exploit that control. This is the antithesis of what made the web powerful in the first place.
Hell, look at Google. "Organize the worlds information" was a very lofty goal. What did they do once they got there? They sell the right to lead users away from the information they're looking for towards professionally written propaganda, and they're given a disgusting amount of power and influence as a reward.
As far as I'm concerned, the promise of the web died when we decided there wasn't anything wrong with giving citizens dynamic IPs that they can't use to self-publish and selling those IPs to large corporate interests.
Big Money wanted the Internet to be a Television, and lazy short-sighted sheep rolled over and let it happen. It's old news, and discussing the technical particulars this late in the game is kind of irrelevant.
Personally, I've always found a dark violet background with pale yellow text in a bold font to be the easiest on the eyes.
Find violet mutes the reflections a bit, and pale yellow gives lots of contrast, but isn't so brilliant ow-lights-in-my-eyes as white text, and doesn't look washed out like green does.
No, google's problem is the exact same as... (Score:1, Troll)
by juuri (7678) Alter Relationship on Wednesday July 02, @12:19PM (#24032409) Homepage,,, Microsoft's is (was?).
Outside of a few exceptions google has managed to quite quickly develop an intense monoculture of people afraid to buck the system or trends. This is to be expected with rapid growth; too bad for them.
They're a one trick pony, like MS (who had 2 tricks, OS and Office) who have been given gobs of money in the hopes that they weren't. But they are.
They decided to start "monetizing" their garage offering and make "me too" apps, just like MS, and they've been going downhill ever since.
I'm still left asking my original question: how am I "endangering public welfare" by distributing a simple closed source Tetris clone?
You are endangering the public welfare because you are distributing something without any assurances that it is what you claim it is. That's it. If you want to distribute it, you can't just claim it is what you say it is, you have to prove it. If you haven't proven that it is what you say it is, you're no different from someone selling drugs without supervision off the back of a truck.
You don't like the ramifications. That's fine. You're not meant to like them, any more than any other business likes having safety inspectors come tramping through their establishment. But seriously... stop acting like you're some sort of retard who is incapable of grasping the point. It's not a particularly subtle and difficult thing to grasp.
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
Huh? The "endangering public welfare" in that situation comes from the fact that they actually did install root kits, not just because they could have installed root kits.
So, in the case of my Tetris clone, if there is no root kit, how have I "endangered public welfare"?
You're using the same logic that DRM proponents would use to ban Linux. "Let's ban any and all closed source software because people could use it to endanger public welfare" is the same as "Let's ban any and all hardware/software that doesn't have DRM because people could use it to break the law."
You are attempting to pretend that the rules governing individual behavior and the rules governing participation in business are the same. They are not the same, and they should not be the same.
You're not prevented from growing your own food and eating it. You are prevented from selling your food without proving that it has been grown, harvested, prepared, packaged and stored in a safe fashion. That means you need to disclose the ingredients and the process by which quality is assured, or you are barred from the market.
You're not prevented from making your own home remedies and using them to treat your own illness. You are prevented from selling your home remedies as medicine without proving that they are safe. That means you need to disclose the ingredients and the process by which their quality is assured, or you are barred from the market.
You're not prevented from making toys for your children, but you are prevented from making toys to sell without proving they are safe. That means you need to disclose the materials from which they are manufactured and the process by which their quality is assured, or you are banned from the market.
None of this is considered draconian by anyone. It is the way business operates, and it has been for a long time.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own technological devices for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing them without disclosing the means by which they operate and the method by which they are manufactured, for the same reasons as with toys and food and medicine.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own software for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing it without disclosing the method in which it operates, for the same reason as with toys and food and medicine.
These laws should exist because if you don't make laws to prevent it, businesses will operate just like the snake oil salesmen of old. They're doing it right now.
By the way, if I distribute a Tetris clone without source code, how exactly do you figure I'm "endangering public welfare"?
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
I'm no expert on the GPL, but am I not correct in thinking that the GPL forces restrictions on developers in order to ensure freedoms for users? For example, the requirement that if I build and distribute something that uses GPL code, I must use the GPL on my code and distribute the source code with the binaries.
Without copyright and the GPL, there is absolutely no way to force me to distribute my source code. I can take an open source project, add to it to create something new, hide the source code in a vault and distribute only the binary. You will be able to copy it freely, but good luck modifying it. You, the user of my software, have lost freedom because there is no GPL to force me to provide you with that freedom.
If you want to sell a car, you can't just go to your garage, make one from scratch and sell it. You're not free to do that. You must submit your car for safety inspection before you are permitted to sell it, and if you're not prepared to do that, you can't sell it.
So, how do you get rid of patents and copyrights and still force people to distribute the production methods and source code? Easy. You create a government funded public repository of designs and patterns. You make it illegal to distribute a device without submitting designs, and you make it illegal to distribute software without submitting source code. If you're caught doing so, your property and infrastructure are seized, and you are placed in jail for endangering public welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Fuck adoption. We don't spinsters and fags caring for unwanted babies, we need MORE BABIES. This whole attitude about being unfit for parenting is a crock.
If you really hate your kids that much, and you hate my kids, and other peoples kids, then I want you to fucking die and get out of my way so we can rape your wife into pregnancy and beat her into lifelong submission. If she can't be made into a fit mother, well, she can die too. Shitty, but if she were a good woman, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
If you don't like lifes responsibilities, die on the point of a sword.
It actually happens in real life conferences, not just teleconferences! gary kasparov interrupted by flying penis
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.
Let me guess: you fucked up, but rather than stay silent or admit that you fucked up, you're simply going to run with this, logic and reason be damned.
No, I'm seriously concerned that our malignant social system has been far below replacement levels for generations, and has only avoided collapse this long because we've been milking the population from more healthy cultures. Except, our success in spreading our malignant social system is leading to a point where immigration won't be there to fill the void, and it will become a global crisis. So, I'm thinking the way to go is to establish a political-social system that attributes votes on the basis of the number of children you have, and if you don't have children, you don't get a vote. This would allow us to split the boomer vote between the DINKs who hold the most capital and would get the scarce medical treatment under our current system and our parents, who are much poorer for having been forced to absorb the cost of raising us as though it were a luxury. I want those DINKs freezing to death out in the cold, I want the women back in the business of giving birth, and if you're not part of endless human story of procreation that will run for generations after I am dead, then you are not a human being. You are an incidental pile of meat, and you should be treated as such.
If you don't reproduce, you're not a human being.
What if it's engineered to be infertile? In fact, what about normal humans who are infertile? Are they not actually human?
No, they're not.
If it is capable of breeding true with other humans, then it's human. If it's not, it's not. Pretty simple.
What I want to know is, will it have support for giant flying penises?
http://www.nowpublic.com/youtube_pulls_video_of_giant_penis_attack_in_second_life
Your courage is commendable, however misplaced. I am willing to die for a lot of things, but consider such an action as a last resort. Fortunately, anonymous and non-verifiable voting allows me to reserve that sacrifice for something more important than the freedom to vote how I choose without pressure, while at the same time insuring that I have that freedom.
No, actually, it doesn't. You live under an illusion. One day, you will see that for yourself.
That is best, but you don't always have the leisure to pick your shots from a position of rest. When you're doing sprint drills across a field with an assault rifle in your hands and you have no chance to catch your breath before taking your shot and continuing to sprint, you need alternative techniques that will accommodate the physical condition you're in.
And if you have the ability to "personally" check how one's vote counted, then your boss has the ability to "personally" check how you voted. If you have a private username or something that only you know, but your boss knows you have it, it is very easy to set up a "show me how you voted or you lose your job" scenario.
If you work for someone like that, and you don't quit once you realize the character of the man you're empowering with your efforts, you deserve to get your ass kicked. You're just making him that much stronger and passing the buck on to someone else to deal with.
If you want self-determination, you need courage. It doesn't come free. Personally, I'd rather die standing in front of a mob screaming bloody murder with a weapon in my hands than be ruled in this way.
As it stands, I don't work for bosses whose politics I don't like. I quit. Always have, always will. If I don't like what a group is doing, I don't give them one iota of my strength. In the absence of a system that grants any individual real political power, sometimes the best a person can do is refuse to be of any help.
Americans have always been such a bunch of hypocritical cowards. Joseph McCarthy didn't teach you anything, and the rest of the world is still dealing with your failure to take responsibility for your country.
It's not as hard as you would think. You can't hold a rifle pointed at a target anyways, no one can. You hold it so it traces a predictable pattern that intersects your target, then time your squeeze so everything comes together. Personally, my muscles tend to move my sight in a squashed figure 8 pattern. When you're tired and out of breath, the pattern will get larger, but it will remain the same shape, and be just as predictable.
Personally, I don't see why individuals should be having secret votes. Should our elected officials be making secret votes? No, so why should anyone else? People always talk about thugs and corporate masters... if a thug tries to bully you into voting the way they say, you refuse. If they try to behave violently afterward, they go to jail. No different from any other thug.
As for corporate masters, well, if we had a good and proper voting system, a real democracy with involved citizens, maybe we could start disassembling the economic structures that give those individuals such crushing arbitrary dynastic power and shift the power towards people we actually trust.
You know, following leadership instead of being ruled? Old fashioned, I know...
Their culture has been declared evil enemies of the US and Israel. They would be idiots if they didn't expect subversion and propaganda campaigns to be launched at them from within. Hell, the play book is available on Wikileaks. Seems like a reasonable measure for them to consider, under the circumstances.
I didn't make the thing.
Reminds me of the "Earth is Growing" theory, offered as an alternative to Plate Tectonics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yqBaD5VwrQ&feature=related
People with a lot of friends on social networking sites probably don't have all that much influence. These are people who agree to be friends with whomever asks them, and will spam people with friend requests. I see pages with "8,000 friends!", and think "uh, no. This guy does not not know 8,000 people personally or well enough to influence their decisions".
What this promises to do is make people think "Wow, if I have lots of friends on my page, I can make some money!", so I can expect a marked increase in unsolicited friend requests from people I don't know.
Not true. My girlfriend has thousands of friends on MySpace and other networking sites, almost all artists or those who appreciate the arts. She's sold original paintings worth thousands of dollars through such, generated interest in live events she's participating in, and met several people who turned into IT clients of ours. The effort invested to create that network has paid off handsomely. Can't see her selling out to any of Googles scumbag clients though... all that would achieve is to sabotage the value of what she's created.
At the end of the day, the reason these mediums are working is because people are actively rejecting anything that comes from a corporate source due to a lack of trust. That's why the corporations want to obscure themselves through schemes such as these. Won't work though... people are too sophisticated, and when they realize what's going on, they'll actively reject any message that comes from an individual who demonstrates their willingness to participate in such as this.
I don't know about your country's WTO members, but as an American I want all American WTO people tried for treason and put in front of a firing squad. And I want their companies' buildings leveled in the most hostile manner possible and their business licenses revoked.
The WTO is anti-human. They need to be stopped by fair means or foul.
It's disgusting that this comes before my country's Independance Day. My country's government is owned by foreigners and American traitors.
Sorry for the ran but this really pisses me off.
I agree. Lead and I will follow. No joke.
The web is an interconnected collection of documents. You're confusing the web with the internet.
The web is being destroyed because it's being monetized. To monetize something is to assert control over it, then exploit that control. This is the antithesis of what made the web powerful in the first place.
Hell, look at Google. "Organize the worlds information" was a very lofty goal. What did they do once they got there? They sell the right to lead users away from the information they're looking for towards professionally written propaganda, and they're given a disgusting amount of power and influence as a reward.
As far as I'm concerned, the promise of the web died when we decided there wasn't anything wrong with giving citizens dynamic IPs that they can't use to self-publish and selling those IPs to large corporate interests.
Big Money wanted the Internet to be a Television, and lazy short-sighted sheep rolled over and let it happen. It's old news, and discussing the technical particulars this late in the game is kind of irrelevant.
Personally, I've always found a dark violet background with pale yellow text in a bold font to be the easiest on the eyes.
Find violet mutes the reflections a bit, and pale yellow gives lots of contrast, but isn't so brilliant ow-lights-in-my-eyes as white text, and doesn't look washed out like green does.
Plus, it makes me feel like a King.
No, google's problem is the exact same as... (Score:1, Troll) by juuri (7678) Alter Relationship on Wednesday July 02, @12:19PM (#24032409) Homepage ,,, Microsoft's is (was?).
Outside of a few exceptions google has managed to quite quickly develop an intense monoculture of people afraid to buck the system or trends. This is to be expected with rapid growth; too bad for them.
They're a one trick pony, like MS (who had 2 tricks, OS and Office) who have been given gobs of money in the hopes that they weren't. But they are.
They decided to start "monetizing" their garage offering and make "me too" apps, just like MS, and they've been going downhill ever since.
And it keeps them from getting the job they deserve. Making me burgers.
I'm still left asking my original question: how am I "endangering public welfare" by distributing a simple closed source Tetris clone?
You are endangering the public welfare because you are distributing something without any assurances that it is what you claim it is. That's it. If you want to distribute it, you can't just claim it is what you say it is, you have to prove it. If you haven't proven that it is what you say it is, you're no different from someone selling drugs without supervision off the back of a truck.
You don't like the ramifications. That's fine. You're not meant to like them, any more than any other business likes having safety inspectors come tramping through their establishment. But seriously... stop acting like you're some sort of retard who is incapable of grasping the point. It's not a particularly subtle and difficult thing to grasp.
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
Huh? The "endangering public welfare" in that situation comes from the fact that they actually did install root kits, not just because they could have installed root kits.
So, in the case of my Tetris clone, if there is no root kit, how have I "endangered public welfare"?
You're using the same logic that DRM proponents would use to ban Linux. "Let's ban any and all closed source software because people could use it to endanger public welfare" is the same as "Let's ban any and all hardware/software that doesn't have DRM because people could use it to break the law."
You are attempting to pretend that the rules governing individual behavior and the rules governing participation in business are the same. They are not the same, and they should not be the same.
You're not prevented from growing your own food and eating it. You are prevented from selling your food without proving that it has been grown, harvested, prepared, packaged and stored in a safe fashion. That means you need to disclose the ingredients and the process by which quality is assured, or you are barred from the market.
You're not prevented from making your own home remedies and using them to treat your own illness. You are prevented from selling your home remedies as medicine without proving that they are safe. That means you need to disclose the ingredients and the process by which their quality is assured, or you are barred from the market.
You're not prevented from making toys for your children, but you are prevented from making toys to sell without proving they are safe. That means you need to disclose the materials from which they are manufactured and the process by which their quality is assured, or you are banned from the market.
None of this is considered draconian by anyone. It is the way business operates, and it has been for a long time.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own technological devices for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing them without disclosing the means by which they operate and the method by which they are manufactured, for the same reasons as with toys and food and medicine.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own software for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing it without disclosing the method in which it operates, for the same reason as with toys and food and medicine.
These laws should exist because if you don't make laws to prevent it, businesses will operate just like the snake oil salesmen of old. They're doing it right now.
By the way, if I distribute a Tetris clone without source code, how exactly do you figure I'm "endangering public welfare"?
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
I'm no expert on the GPL, but am I not correct in thinking that the GPL forces restrictions on developers in order to ensure freedoms for users? For example, the requirement that if I build and distribute something that uses GPL code, I must use the GPL on my code and distribute the source code with the binaries.
Without copyright and the GPL, there is absolutely no way to force me to distribute my source code. I can take an open source project, add to it to create something new, hide the source code in a vault and distribute only the binary. You will be able to copy it freely, but good luck modifying it. You, the user of my software, have lost freedom because there is no GPL to force me to provide you with that freedom.
If you want to sell a car, you can't just go to your garage, make one from scratch and sell it. You're not free to do that. You must submit your car for safety inspection before you are permitted to sell it, and if you're not prepared to do that, you can't sell it.
So, how do you get rid of patents and copyrights and still force people to distribute the production methods and source code? Easy. You create a government funded public repository of designs and patterns. You make it illegal to distribute a device without submitting designs, and you make it illegal to distribute software without submitting source code. If you're caught doing so, your property and infrastructure are seized, and you are placed in jail for endangering public welfare.
Problem solved.